Author
Listed:
- Son Ngoc Do
- Chinh Quoc Luong
- My Ha Nguyen
- Dung Thi Pham
- Nga Thi Nguyen
- Dai Quang Huynh
- Quoc Trong Ai Hoang
- Co Xuan Dao
- Thang Dinh Vu
- Ha Nhat Bui
- Hung Tan Nguyen
- Hai Bui Hoang
- Thuy Thi Phuong Le
- Lien Thi Bao Nguyen
- Phuoc Thien Duong
- Tuan Dang Nguyen
- Vuong Hung Le
- Giang Thi Tra Pham
- Tam Van Bui
- Giang Thi Huong Bui
- Jason Phua
- Andrew Li
- Thao Thi Ngoc Pham
- Chi Van Nguyen
- Anh Dat Nguyen
Abstract
Background: The simple scoring systems for predicting the outcome of sepsis in intensive care units (ICUs) are few, especially for limited-resource settings. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in predicting the mortality of ICU patients with sepsis in Vietnam. Methods: We did a multicenter cross-sectional study of patients with sepsis (≥18 years old) presenting to 15 adult ICUs throughout Vietnam on the specified days (i.e., 9th January, 3rd April, 3rd July, and 9th October) representing the different seasons of 2019. The primary and secondary outcomes were the hospital and ICU all-cause mortalities, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated to determine the discriminatory ability of the qSOFA score for deaths in the hospital and ICU. The cut-off value of the qSOFA scores was determined by the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Upon ICU admission, factors associated with the hospital and ICU mortalities were assessed in univariable and multivariable logistic models. Results: Of 252 patients, 40.1% died in the hospital, and 33.3% died in the ICU. The qSOFA score had a poor discriminatory ability for both the hospital (AUROC: 0.610 [95% CI: 0.538 to 0.681]; cut-off value: ≥2.5; sensitivity: 34.7%; specificity: 84.1%; PAUROC = 0.003) and ICU (AUROC: 0.619 [95% CI: 0.544 to 0.694]; cutoff value: ≥2.5; sensitivity: 36.9%; specificity: 83.3%; PAUROC = 0.002) mortalities. However, multivariable logistic regression analyses show that the qSOFA score of 3 was independently associated with the increased risk of deaths in both the hospital (adjusted odds ratio, AOR: 3.358; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.756 to 6.422) and the ICU (AOR: 3.060; 95% CI: 1.651 to 5.671). Conclusion: In our study, despite having a poor discriminatory value, the qSOFA score seems worthwhile in predicting mortality in ICU patients with sepsis in limited-resource settings. Clinical trial registration: Clinical trials registry–India: CTRI/2019/01/016898
Suggested Citation
Son Ngoc Do & Chinh Quoc Luong & My Ha Nguyen & Dung Thi Pham & Nga Thi Nguyen & Dai Quang Huynh & Quoc Trong Ai Hoang & Co Xuan Dao & Thang Dinh Vu & Ha Nhat Bui & Hung Tan Nguyen & Hai Bui Hoang & T, 2022.
"Predictive validity of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score for the mortality in patients with sepsis in Vietnamese intensive care units,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-16, October.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0275739
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275739
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0275739. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.